CVE-2026-0901VulnerabilityPublished 20 Jan 2026

CVE-2026-0901: Google Chrome · Inappropriate implementation

Affects Google ChromeSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.4 Medium : upgrade to 144.0.7559.59 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.4Medium

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 11% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 144.0.7559.59

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: Low
Availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
Integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 20 Jan 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 2026-10-26.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Upgrade Google Chrome to 144.0.7559.59.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GoogleChrome	Affected >=144.0.7559.59 <144.0.7559.59	Fixed in 144.0.7559.59

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2026-0901, organizations should prioritize updating all Android devices to Google Chrome version 144.0.7559.59 or later as soon as the update becomes available. IT departments should enforce update policies and leverage mobile device management (MDM) solutions to ensure compliance. Additionally, organizations should educate users about the risks of UI spoofing and encourage vigilance when interacting with unexpected or suspicious web content, especially on mobile devices. Implementing browser security features such as strict content security policies (CSP) and enabling safe browsing protections can reduce exposure. Monitoring for phishing campaigns exploiting this vulnerability and integrating threat intelligence feeds into security operations can enhance detection capabilities. For web developers, validating and sanitizing user-generated content can help prevent attackers from embedding malicious HTML. Finally, organizations should prepare incident response plans that include scenarios involving UI spoofing to ensure rapid containment and remediation.

Description

Inappropriate implementation in Blink in Google Chrome on Android prior to 144.0.7559.59 allowed a remote attacker to perform UI spoofing via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: High)

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2026-0901 is significant due to the widespread use of Google Chrome on Android devices for both personal and professional activities. UI spoofing can facilitate phishing attacks, credential theft, and unauthorized transactions, undermining user trust and potentially leading to data breaches or financial losses. Organizations with mobile workforces or those relying on mobile web applications are particularly vulnerable. The threat extends to sectors such as finance, healthcare, and government, where sensitive data protection is critical. Additionally, the deceptive nature of UI spoofing can complicate incident detection and response, increasing the risk of prolonged exposure. The vulnerability could also be exploited to bypass multi-factor authentication prompts or security warnings, further elevating risk. Given the cross-border nature of mobile device usage, the impact is not confined to a single country but affects the broader European digital ecosystem.

CWE-451User Interface (UI) Misrepresentation of Critical Information (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The user interface (UI) does not properly represent critical information to the user, allowing the information - or its source - to be obscured or spoofed. This is often a component in phishing attacks.
Implementation · Input Validation
Perform data validation (e.g. syntax, length, etc.) before interpreting the data.
Architecture and Design · Output Encoding
Create a strategy for presenting information, and plan for how to display unusual characters.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Secure Design Principles (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Spear Phishing (opens in a new tab)
Mobile Phishing (opens in a new tab)
Phishing (opens in a new tab)
Resource Location Spoofing (opens in a new tab)
Action Spoofing (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 20 Jan 2026, 04:38 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-451

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats